The Church and Behavioral Dimension

[pneuma07]

Sorry to take so long in responding - I’m on holidays and have been away. It doesn’t seem to me we’re in agreement on that - according to Webster’s, one definition of “must” is: necessity.

.

Dear Lady,
Same here, been on holidays too. Where did you go ?

I had no objection to that being a definition of “must”. Just what I observe is that it does not “necessarily” convey a necessity, and when so not necessarily an absolute one. We should pass to Greek anyway.

Why?

Because he could not omit in a list anything which is in the other, if those were mandatory lists. What is mandatory for Tim is mandatory for Titus too, and vice versa.

That would seem to be splitting hairs, in my opinion. If that is a big deal, let’s go to the opposite side of the spectrum and talk about clery are are not blameless and do not have a good testimony. I look upon clergy who are deviant and do evil things to be in the same category as those described in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 - “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 1t is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”

There are of course guys who do not respect any of the two lists. That does not tell us the two are identical, which is what I am asking to pay attention to.

Possibly - if there is something that needs to be repented of and he is unwilling to do so.

It’s pretty straight forward, I think. One qualification is simply that the candidate is not a recent convert. If a person lives long enough, at some point they will not be a recent convert anymore and then may possibly be qualified to be a minister.

The clause on being recent converts shows IMHO we’re dealing with qualifications of candidates.
In other words we have recommendations to Titus and Tim about whom to ordain. They have to be careful about what they do, whom they ordain.

That last sentence in your quote blows me away. Is there ever really a time that an ordained minister should be above moral reproach?

I am just saying that I cannot see where Scriptures tell us flocks or people within them can or must decide any time who is still a minister of Christ.

I’m assuming you are referring to Hebrews 13:17 - “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

I have no problem with that verse, but it must always be regarded in light of other scripture as well:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
Matthew 7:15-16

In other words, the guy in the robe may or may not be a true man of God. Watch for his fruit. If he evil bears evil fruit- BEWARE! Why should anyone subject themselves to wolves in sheep’s clothing? It is not what God intends for us

“Prophet”, you may note, is not a normal way to design one who has religious authority within an establishment. Rather, he is one who comes to you and speaks about the establishment.
Beware, and observe whether the main fruit of such a guy is division.

Bless you

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical ! Always a pleasure reading you.

Thanks

Are you joining this sub-forum ?

I think this is where we first met…I was surfing, noticed your name and found it was a thread topic that I feel very passionate about

Sorry that I can reply so late. On the positive side: nice holidays.

I kinda figured

On the negative: a burglary at home.

sorry to hear…coincidently, we just had a bit of vandalism here

I hope your summer was OK .

thanks…the weather here has been bad…global warming is not living up to expectations at all

I am afraid my presentation as it was scored rather badly under your test. Maybe some improvements are going to come out through it.

you didn’t do all that bad…I am just a cranky audience

Several different lines could be explored about the fruits of the Church. Now, for one, you are a Christian, as a key factor, because of the actions of the Catholic Church, from which your spiritual forefathers received the Gospel. That remains true even if in your view they had to get rid of doctrinal corruptions, and you have probably still to work on that doctrinal cleansing nowadays. Your longing itself for a more irreproachable people of God, and anything like that, therefore, came to you through the Church.

what role would you attribute to the Holy Spirit in these matters?

But do you interpret that according to Jesus what the Pharisees would do would disqualify automatically what they would say ?

no…however, it would call into question the degree to which they could be said to be men after God’s own heart…and if they were not necessarily men after God’s own heart, then it raises a question as to the validity of their teaching.

Or their roles ?

it did affect their role as spiritual leaders

Yet that WAS indeed His people ( wasn’t it, according to you ?).

well as the book of Romans clarifies, the actual circumcised were the visible children of Abraham, but it was those who were possessed of a circumcised heart who were the true children of Abraham. Substance over form determined the true identity of God’s children.

A further perspective I propose is that if we are concerned about why catholics do not look any “better” than fellow Christians in modern faith communities, we cannot be less concerned about why we Christians do not look obviously “better” ( whatever our own definition of this term) than non-christian fellows around us.

Agreed, agreed and agreed…we are to be indwelt by the Holy Spirt, where is the evidence of this indwelling?

Is that according to you an overarching stumbling block for our faith ?

if I am to ever leave the faith, this would likely be the trigger…I find it much more troubling than the existence of evil etc.

I mean, the behavioral dimension should be an even more acute concern in general christian apologetics, than in specific catholic apologetics. Since our behaviors as a whole do not appear to stand above the general human crowd ( do they ? ), which should be a stronger and more founded expectation than anything within Christianity, should we infer that Christian religion has to be rejected ?

perhaps certain Christian “truths” should be rejected…maybe we need to re-evaluate who should be considered actual followers of Christ,… maybe focus should be realigned so that it is 99.9% substance and 0.1 % form? I get the impression that with your Church there is a great deal of emphasis on form…do you think that mine is a accurate impression?

 

[StrawberryJam]

The terms of the argument lead one to conclude that the person making it can’t trust himself for the very same reason. He can’t accept himself as his own moral authority either, his own record of behavior being what it is.

Clarify please.
Can you do so while using this defense for any catholic, lay or otherwise?

 

[Radical]

My point is that anointed kings were not routinely subject to moral examinations to be able to go on ruling God’s people.

such is the nature of a political vs spiritual appointment

Saul did remain the anointed all his life. David knew that he or anybody else should always respect that.

to work from that example for the benefit of your Church, you would have to establish that God did the “ifs” of a, b, f and g (below) for otherwise the need to respect (as the annointed one) never arises and you would have to also establish that God did not do the things contemplated in the “ifs” of c, and e (otherwise the need to respect ends at the death of the guy in office at the time of the event)

If however we do postulate that there is no legitimate christian authority, of divine origin, than it’s OK that boards of believers appoint and fire their own pastors, seeing that as a human authority, in a job as other ones. If, I underline “if”, there is not even a remote possibility that Christ did institute an authority and a visible Church which would last through the centuries.

well there is a lot “ifs” too, for your idea to work wrt the authority (authority X) claimed by the CC…isn’t it something like:

a) if Jesus gave the apostles an authority X that could be passed on

b) if that authority X could only be passed on by the appointed “tagging” the appointee

c) if God did not to remove the authority X from a line of “tagged” appointees for reason of immorality

d) if God did not provide for any other means of initiating a line of authority X

e) if God did not initiate a new authority Y to replace authority X

f) if that authority X could be passed on through an indefinite number of generations; and

g) if that authority X was somehow centered on an even more extraordinary authority X given to Peter that was somehow passed onto a single appointee of Peter located in one of the cities where Peter ministered

…then, and only then would we get to the point of there being a legitimate christian authority, of divine origin as described by the CC, but we hardly need an authority as described by the CC to have a legitimate christian authority, of divine origin…other possibilities exist

The end of the earthly Davidic kingdom took place through a foreign conquer,…

yes, the political kingdom was ended by a foreign conquerer (who is depicted as carrying out God’s judgment)

… not a jewish decision,

Correct…it is said to have been God’s decision. What do we know about the Pharisees who occupied the seat of Moses. How did they get there? Who appointed them? Were they allowed to remain as Pharisees if they were known to be practicing adulterers (for example)? To what degree were these “jewish decisions”?

…and not after the first grossly sinful successor ( there were several of them actually ) .

if this is a requirement, then the CC has fulfilled that requirement in its history

How should we then read the unprecedented duration and resiliency of the CC through all the dramatic upheavals of these two millennia ? Saint Augustine maintained that one of the persuasive arguments about the authority of the Catholic Church was her antiquity.
That does not sound less persuasive after sixteen more centuries and counting IMHO.

persuasiveness is truly in the eye of the beholder. Several things:

1. as you know, we disagree strongly on whether it is valid to identify the modern CC as the same entity as the ancient universal church
2. it is very clear to me that we should “read” the “unprecedented duration and resiliency of the CC” as a political phenomenon. Look at a map of Europe and note which countries are predominantly Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant. Catholic jurisdiction was determined exactly by the distance to which the sword of a Catholic ruler could swing with authority…outside of that reach, the Christian denomination was determined by the prince of that jurisdiction
3. before Christianity arose, it was recognized that uniformity in religion was desirable for political stability in the empire. With Constantine, the religion around which uniformity was sought to be enforced was switched to Christianity. This continued as the empire was split into kingdoms.
4. Both the church hierarchy and the world’s princes were seen as being appointed by God. If the populace could challenge one arm of that dual authority, then the masses could very easily challenge the other arm as well. Both the hierarchy and the princes had a vested interest in protecting the authority of the other from challenge from dissidents. This is why the kings often did the CC’s dirty work in killing protestants and other “heretics”.

As such, since (what you would identify as) the CC has enjoyed the support of the military and political might of most of Western Europe’s emperors, kings and princes from the fourth century onward, why would you think that the CC’s unprecedented duration and resiliency is anything special?

 

[Radical]

continuing…

It also strikes me that in that very same century the CC was blessed with millions of new believers in the New World).

again, why Latin America is predominantly Catholic has everything to do with the religion of the kings of Spain and Portugal

I hope this question does not make me a spin doctor.

no comment

James 5:20, “*whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”. *

but what do you do with a leader who refuses to turn from his error?

As for public campaigns, even if we had to prefer guys who preach or cry against others’ mores rather than looking at theirs own ( and IMHO we are far too inclined to constitute ourselves judges in public and daily life ), as if they were as pure or purer than John the Baptist, the fundamental watershed is doing that “something” within the Church or against the Church, ultimately costituting oneself as new leader of God’s people.

The church as a whole is the “body of Christ”, and Christ, when he was here, would tell Peter in no uncertain terms, exactly how he was failing and how he needed to improve. The body of Christ IMHO still needs to fulfill that role of correcting its leadership…and if the leadership is not prepared to listen, then the body of Christ must act.

Boasting any personal merit for being a member of His Church, or anything like that, does not look very christian and very helpful indeed. I am completely with you, if that is the point.
When we OTOH tell each other our perspectives and the differences between them, I cannot see anything judgmental there. It seems IMHO deeply human and Christian.

I truly respect your conduct on these forums…your approach is commendable

And you. Thanks so much !

it is always a pleasure…may God bless you

 

[pneuma07]

what role would you attribute to the Holy Spirit in these matters?

Dear Radical,

1 Cor 3
4 5 What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one.
6
I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
7
Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.

no…however, it would call into question the degree to which they could be said to be men after God’s own he
art…and if they were not necessarily men after God’s own heart, then it raises a question as to the validity of their teaching.
it did affect their role as spiritual leaders

well as the book of Romans clarifies, the actual circumcised were the visible children of Abraham, but it was those who were possessed of a circumcised heart who were the true children of Abraham. Substance over form determined the true identity of God’s children.

Jesus himself tells us indeed that some were not real children of Abraham, but of the devil…. But I understand that the distinction is clearly maintained by Him between “lost sheep” within Isarael and the gentiles.
The “qahal”, people of God, was then indeed a visible entity, which is succeeded by the ekklesia. At this point does the religious authority within the ancient qahal cease to be able to bind and loose for those who follow Jesus.

In any field wheat and weeds are together. It is written

“Let both grow together”

We can see the field, but we cannot separate wheat and weeds within it.
Isn’t there somehow a temptation to get a weedless field in the moral arguments against the Church ?

Agreed, agreed and agreed…we are to be indwelt by the Holy Spirt, where is the evidence of this indwelling?
if I am to ever leave the faith, this would likely be the trigger…I find it much more troubling than the existence of evil etc.

Your position is different, and more solid IMHO, than those of many who reject Catholicism on moral ground and do not care at all about the possible moral argument concerning Chrstianity as a whole.
I can tell you I am fascinated by the ( seemingly) saintly behaviors of some non believers. And we so often do not really look the salt of the world.
That said I should not go too far in considering the situation just totally bleak. When considered statistically, behaviors of committed Christians, nominal ones and non believers do differ, even if not dramatically so, in a number of sectors, ranging from family to social active compassion. And we do produce some Mother Theresas.
Maybe that’s just too little.

perhaps certain Christian “truths” should be rejected…maybe we need to re-evaluate who should be considered actual followers of Christ,… maybe focus should be realigned so that it is 99.9% substance and 0.1 % form? I get the impression that with your Church there is a great deal of emphasis on form…do you think that mine is a accurate impression ?

What “truths” should be rejected on the ground of the poor behavioral record of Christians ?

We should of course understand what is meant by “substance” here.
Speaking about Catholicism, the concept of baptism of desire could likely deserve your attention for an assessment of the substance-form issue.

 

[pneuma07]

such is the nature of a political vs spiritual appointment

Saul’s and David’s appointments are described by Sciptures as spiritual. You after all concede that Saul’s example could very very theoretically work for the benefit of the CC.

to work from that example for the benefit of your Church, you would have to establish that God did the “ifs” of a, b, f and g (below) for otherwise the need to respect (as the annointed one) never arises and you would have to also establish that God did not do the things contemplated in the “ifs” of c, and e (otherwise the need to respect ends at the death of the guy in office at the time of the event)

well there is a lot “ifs” too, for your idea to work wrt the authority (authority X) claimed by the CC…isn’t it something like:

a) if Jesus gave the apostles an authority X that could be passed on

b) if that authority X could only be passed on by the appointed “tagging” the appointee

c) if God did not to remove the authority X from a line of “tagged” appointees for reason of immorality

d) if God did not provide for any other means of initiating a line of authority X

e) if God did not initiate a new authority Y to replace authority X

f) if that authority X could be passed on through an indefinite number of generations; and

g) if that authority X was somehow centered on an even more extraordinary authority X given to Peter that was somehow passed onto a single appointee of Peter located in one of the cities where Peter ministered

…then, and only then would we get to the point of there being a legitimate christian authority, of divine origin as described by the CC, but we hardly need an authority as described by the CC to have a legitimate christian authority, of divine origin…other possibilities exist

This post of yours is leading us into the issue of the status of the CC as candidate to the role of legitimate Christian authority stemming from the Master. That is nevertheless somehow outside the scope of the present thread.

c) is undoubtedly a relevant point here

1. IMHO Jesus did not declare the autorities of His time removed for reason of immorality.
2. How could we nowadays know that God removes an incumbent appointee ?

Let us anyway forget these and other difficulties, for argument’s sake, and suppose you know a bishop was indeed removed by God. Broken line, end of the game ?

There is an ancient rule, which is so formulated by the present Code of Canon Law ( 1014)

*the principal consecrating Bishop at an Episcopal consecration is to have at least two other consecratingBishops with him. It is, however, entirely appropriate that all the Bishops present should join withthese in consecrating the Bishop-elect. *

That simple and smart device make you sure that even if the divine removal theory had evidence ( of course the rule was not introduced for that, but to avoid any possible reason of invalid consecration ) and even if a very significant part of the bishops through the centuries had indeed had deeply corrupt hearts and therefore suffered that removal, the validity of the present episcopate would not be affected, as far as c) is concerned.

Further independent question: the divine removal would be a visible or invisible one ? In the second case how would I know that bishop YZ has been removed ? If OTOH the former is to be expected, if I see YZ celebrating in his cathedral, I have then to suppose he was not divinely removed.

 

[pneuma07]

yes, the political kingdom was ended by a foreign conquerer (who is depicted as carrying out God’s judgment)
Correct…it is said to have been God’s decision. What do we know about the Pharisees who occupied the seat of Moses. How did they get there? Who appointed them? Were they allowed to remain as Pharisees if they were known to be practicing adulterers (for example)? To what degree were these “jewish decisions”?

You are IMHO making precisely my point here , since God did not send in these two millennia a conqueror who destroyed the CC.

if this is a requirement, then the CC has fulfilled that requirement in its history

I mean: we have to decide whether divine removal applies to single leaders or to the institution as a whole. Looking at the Davidic Kingdom the former does not appear to be the case.

persuasiveness is truly in the eye of the beholder. Several things:

1. as you know, we disagree strongly on whether it is valid to identify the modern CC as the same entity as the ancient universal church

1. it is very clear to me that we should “read” the “unprecedented duration and resiliency of the CC” as a political phenomenon. Look at a map of Europe and note which countries are predominantly Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant. Catholic jurisdiction was determined exactly by the distance to which the sword of a Catholic ruler could swing with authority…outside of that reach, the Christian denomination was determined by the prince of that jurisdiction

1. before Christianity arose, it was recognized that uniformity in religion was desirable for political stability in the empire. With Constantine, the religion around which uniformity was sought to be enforced was switched to Christianity. This continued as the empire was split into kingdoms.

1. Both the church hierarchy and the world’s princes were seen as being appointed by God. If the populace could challenge one arm of that dual authority, then the masses could very easily challenge the other arm as well. Both the hierarchy and the princes had a vested interest in protecting the authority of the other from challenge from dissidents. This is why the kings often did the CC’s dirty work in killing protestants and other “heretics”.

As such, since (what you would identify as) the CC has enjoyed the support of the military and political might of most of Western Europe’s emperors, kings and princes from the fourth century onward, why would you think that the CC’s unprecedented duration and resiliency is anything special ?

We can no doubt fruitfully study secular conditions of resiliency, and yours can certainly be a sensible secular approach.
Speaking between Christians I just propose two points , in a more theological perspective,

1. God is not scared by the kings of the earth and their religious options.
2. God did not terminate the CC.

 

[pneuma07]

continuing…

again, why Latin America is predominantly Catholic has everything to do with the religion of the kings of Spain and Portugal

“what role would you attribute to the Holy Spirit” in the conversion of entire peoples in the New World ?

no comment

Amen

but what do you do with a leader who refuses to turn from his error?

The church as a whole is the “body of Christ”, and Christ, when he was here, would tell Peter in no uncertain terms, exactly how he was failing and how he needed to improve. The body of Christ IMHO still needs to fulfill that role of correcting its leadership…and if the leadership is not prepared to listen, then the body of Christ must act.

I am afraid there is some role confusion here between the Body, the Church, and the Head, Christ.
On top of that, rebels against the leadership would always be just members of the Body, not the Body, claiming as such an unsubstantiated representation.

I truly respect your conduct on these forums…your approach is commendable
it is always a pleasure…may God bless you

Your words are very encouraging.
God Bless you.

 

[Radical]

Jesus himself tells us indeed that some were not real children of Abraham, but of the devil…. But I understand that the distinction is clearly maintained by Him between “lost sheep” within Isarael and the gentiles.
The “qahal”, people of God, was then indeed a visible entity, which is succeeded by the ekklesia. At this point does the religious authority within the ancient qahal cease to be able to bind and loose for those who follow Jesus.
In any field wheat and weeds are together. It is written “Let both grow together”
We can see the field, but we cannot separate wheat and weeds within it.
Isn’t there somehow a temptation to get a weedless field in the moral arguments against the Church ?

I don’t know. It is one thing to tolerate weeds in the field, it is quite another thing to tolerate weeds as the leaders of the grain in the field. In that regard, it is more than a temptation, it is a declared goal to get a weedless leadership.

What “truths” should be rejected on the ground of the poor behavioral record of Christians ?

I haven’t really made up a list on this…WRT the CC I reject its claim to be free from error (in its official teaching). If a non-Catholic body claimed that its teaching was free from error, I would reject that claim too. I guess that I would reject a claim from any part of the church that would require that part to have an extra measure of Holy Spirit guidance (beyond what its fruit would suggest)

Saul’s and David’s appointments are described by Sciptures as spiritual. You after all concede that Saul’s example could very very theoretically work for the benefit of the CC.

it is a tough sell for you…after all, at the end of the day, Saul’s kingly lineage was terminated and there was no need to respect his offspring as annointed.

1. IMHO Jesus did not declare the authorities of His time removed for reason of immorality.

agreed

1. How could we nowadays know that God removes an incumbent appointee?

Let me reference a Catholic concept here. I think it is called self excommunication (or something of the sort). If a fellow had God’s blessing as overseer and then chooses to do things which would disqualify him from leadership (as per Paul’s instructions to Tim and Titus), then that blessing would have be lost. It is then up to the congregation to act. Likewise, a fellow who never qualified for such leadership (as per Paul’s instructions to Tim and Titus), would never have gained God’s blessing.

That simple and smart device make you sure that even if the divine removal theory had evidence ( of course the rule was not introduced for that, but to avoid any possible reason of invalid consecration ) and even if a very significant part of the bishops through the centuries had indeed had deeply corrupt hearts and therefore suffered that removal, the validity of the present episcopate would not be affected, as far as c) is concerned.

again, from my perspective, there is no such thing as a mechanical apostolic succesion which is achieved by way of the laying on of hands. Apostolic succession (from my point of view…and the majority of Prots) is achieved by way of adherence to the core apostolic teachings and as such we all enjoy apostolic succession. Leaders are those who (like the rest of us) possess a spiritual succession in relation to the apostles and also possess special gifting. As such, if a leader acts contrary to the apostolic teachings, he loses his claim to apostolic succession…it is a spiritual matter and not a mechanical matter. This is exactly why we will always consider a spiritual matter (such as immorality) as a means of validating a claim to apostolic succession

Further independent question: the divine removal would be a visible or invisible one ?

invisible, but discernable by reference to scripture

If OTOH the former is to be expected, if I see YZ celebrating in his cathedral, I have then to suppose he was not divinely removed.

I hope that my explanations have served to make clear why I would never make this assumption w/o knowing the man

You are IMHO making precisely my point here , since God did not send in these two millennia a conqueror who destroyed the CC.

I guess we will disagree here…but let me point out that as his kingdom is now a spiritual one, I would expect the battle field to be in the spiritual realm and not the streets of Rome

I mean: we have to decide whether divine removal applies to single leaders or to the institution as a whole. Looking at the Davidic Kingdom the former does not appear to be the case.

well, since I don’t think that the lineage is maintained in the same manner as you do, I don’t know that this distinction applies

We can no doubt fruitfully study secular conditions of resiliency, and yours can certainly be a sensible secular approach.
Speaking between Christians I just propose two points , in a more theological perspective,

1. God is not scared by the kings of the earth and their religious options.

agreed, but he does seem to engage in a fairly “hands off” approach…don’t know how one would otherwise categorize his allowance of the holocaust

1. God did not terminate the CC.

nor has he terminated the Orthodox or Protestantism…even by your reckoning, those to parts of Christianity would have a combined 1500 years of existence w/o termination…and the Protestant side has sure enjoyed the blessing of fantastic growth.

 

[Radical]

“what role would you attribute to the Holy Spirit” in the conversion of entire peoples in the New World ?

I would be inclined to give the Holy Spirit credit for the conversion of each and every individual, but I wouldn’t give the HS credit for the use of the sword in requiring that conversion to be into the CC.

I am afraid there is some role confusion here between the Body, the Church, and the Head, Christ.

I had 1 Cor 12 in mind where it reads:
*The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. *

On top of that, rebels against the leadership would always be just members of the Body, not the Body, claiming as such an unsubstantiated representation.

note how Paul tells the church at Corinth that it is the body of Christ…and not just a small part of the universal body of Christ. The Church at Corinth was to have a complete body, with eyes, hands, feet and arms etc. Where the leadership is corrupt, it is not as if the eye (let’s go with that part as symbolizing leadership) is saying to the hand, “I don’t need you!” Instead, it would be as if the eye is saying to the rest of the body (and head) “I will not see for you!”…but the body of Christ needs the benefit of the eye, and so if the eye is not serving its purpose of seeing (which in the church would include leading by moral example) then the eye needs to be replaced with one that sees.

God Bless you!

 

[pneuma07]

I don’t know. It is one thing to tolerate weeds in the field, it is quite another thing to tolerate weeds as the leaders of the grain in the field. In that regard, it is more than a temptation, it is a declared goal to get a weedless leadership.

.

Dear Radical,

then we should read that as meaning *“let both grow together… except in some parts of the fields”. *I can see nothing in the parable of the tares as supporting the idea that we are both entitled and able to separate weeds form wheat, in any area of the field.

I haven’t really made up a list on this…WRT the CC I reject its claim to be free from error (in its official teaching). If a non-Catholic body claimed that its teaching was free from error, I would reject that claim too. I guess that I would reject a claim from any part of the church that would require that part to have an extra measure of Holy Spirit guidance (beyond what its fruit would suggest)

I see. I was wondering if you’re pondering whether to reject common Christian tenets

it is a tough sell for you…after all, at the end of the day, Saul’s kingly lineage was terminated and there was no need to respect his offspring as annointed.

His offspring was not anointed. Period. ( BTW later davidic sinful kings left left their offsprings on the throne ).
David teaches us ( instrumentally you could observe, yet that does appear the inspired author’s teaching too) that you have to respect the legitimate anointed as such, independently from his behavior or even his being an enemy of yours, and even if you already know who is going to be the successor . This is my point, to which you replied with the list of “ifs”.

Quote:

1. IMHO Jesus did not declare the authorities of His time removed for reason of immorality.

agreed

Really not a minor agreement, in the context of the present thread.

Let me reference a Catholic concept here. I think it is called self excommunication (or something of the sort). If a fellow had God’s blessing as overseer and then chooses to do things which would disqualify him from leadership (as per Paul’s instructions to Tim and Titus), then that blessing would have be lost. It is then up to the congregation to act. Likewise, a fellow who never qualified for such leadership (as per Paul’s instructions to Tim and Titus), would never have gained God’s blessing.

I have tried to show that the qualifications written to Tim, and, respectively, those to Titus, simply cannot be mandatory. They are IMHO lists of recommendations to these two guys, having each the power and the duty to ordain, to be careful in exercising this exceptional task.
Nowhere IMHO in these, or other, scriptural pericopes is suggested that once ordained by Tim or Titus, or their peers, overseers could be ( or even should, under detailed circumstances ) “unordained” by their congregations.

Maybe those serious recommendations about an appropriate choice of candidates are, on the contrary, given just since

Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid.

As the Code of Canon Law reads in Canon 290.

 

[pneuma07]

invisible, but discernable by reference to scripture
I hope that my explanations have served to make clear why I would never make this assumption w/o knowing the man

.

Granted this is your present position. As you see I focused on your point c) above. You assembled so many powerful “ifs”.
It would be interesting, following your lead, “if” in the future you wanted to introduce a thread on points a) and b).

I guess we will disagree here…but let me point out that as his kingdom is now a spiritual one, I would expect the battle field to be in the spiritual realm and not the streets of Rome

And I do share your perspective. I am quite persuaded ( rather terrified by ) that the Sistine Chapel will probably not see the XXII century ( for non Christian iconoclasts are going to destroy it ).

The earthly Rome can suffer whatever sad destiny. The Universal Church would live anyway.

well, since I don’t think that the lineage is maintained in the same manner as you do, I don’t know that this distinction applies

Should I get that you judge the validity of any pastor according to your moral criteria case by case ? I guess you do not consider the catholic bishop of your city as your pastor , and you would not even if you could ascertain he is a man of the highest level of morality according to your own point of view.
The gist of the present thread is whether the CC as such is to be considered disqualified because of a behavioral record.
Then we have to show whether, and under what conditions and what established rules, a supposed disqualification, on grounds of morality, of single bishops and popes, determines the hypotetical disqualification of the CC.

I hope that my explanations have served to make clear why I would never make this assumption w/o knowing the man

I do not see 1 Tim and Titus as providing us with anything like a technical tool to legitimately invalidate ( either in your own heart or in a board called to decide whether to fire and invalidate) pastors, or even to discern a supposed divine removal. As for my motivations, you can see what already said about those lists answering Fair Lady.
Consider moreover please that the introductory general terms used in them to mean a general fine level of morality are different, albeit similar. We have “anègkletos” in 1 Tim and “anepìleptos” in Titus. The use of two different words strongly supports IMHO the idea that we do not have here any technical “Handbook on Removing Pastors and on Discernment on supposed divine Removals”.

agreed, but he does seem to engage in a fairly “hands off” approach…don’t know how one would otherwise categorize his allowance of the holocaust
nor has he terminated the Orthodox or Protestantism…even by your reckoning, those to parts of Christianity would have a combined 1500 years of existence w/o termination…and the Protestant side has sure enjoyed the blessing of fantastic growth

I am not sure to know to be honest what “Protestantism” is. I know, just a little, many Protestantisms, maybe some “post-Protestantisms”, and several forms of Christianity I am not always able to classify , such as some African Independent Churches. Is eg Oneness Pentecostalism a Protestantism ?
Speaking about the remarkable rate of growth of “non apostolic” Christianity in the present generation, this is mainly due to the youngest bodies there, often just one century old. The most ancient , almost 500 old, do not seem to enjoy blessing on this scale. So I cannot see which body we should compare to the CC, which, after all ( I am far from being a triumphalist and a lover of number arguments as such ), is growing even nowadays in absolute numbers after two millennia ( I would not be shocked by a period of decreases, BTW).

BTW, how old is the “entity Catholic Church” according to you ?

 

[pneuma07]

I would be inclined to give the Holy Spirit credit for the conversion of each and every individual, but I wouldn’t give the HS credit for the use of the sword in requiring that conversion to be into the CC.

I’d say there was no particular compulsion, during the evangelization towards them, specifically aimed to prevent native American peoples from joining non catholic faith communities they knew just nothing about.
My point was just sharing with you my observation that during the most difficult upheaval since the arian crisis, the CC would enjoy the blessing of a brand new mass christianization.

I had 1 Cor 12 in mind where it reads:
*The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. *

note how Paul tells the church at Corinth that it is the body of Christ…and not just a small part of the universal body of Christ. The Church at Corinth was to have a complete body, with eyes, hands, feet and arms etc. Where the leadership is corrupt, it is not as if the eye (let’s go with that part as symbolizing leadership) is saying to the hand, “I don’t need you!” Instead, it would be as if the eye is saying to the rest of the body (and head) “I will not see for you!”…but the body of Christ needs the benefit of the eye, and so if the eye is not serving its purpose of seeing (which in the church would include leading by moral example) then the eye needs to be replaced with one that sees.

I was not going into the relation between local and universal Church.
I’d say the Head has to invalidate the pastors of His Church… not hands or legs.

Even in a general secular environment this bottom – up firing process would be a singular prescription for mess. Generally you’re fired by your boss, not your co-workers. You seem to say that a captain is valid just as long as he pleases the crew.

Regardless, the Church does have His Head and His Architect. We’re her living stones. He said “I will build my Church”. Shall we all be architects of His Church ?

Whenever, by a supposed empowerment, I happen to want to invalidate a pastor and you don’t ( since there is no obvious objective criterion on that, and disagreements are even more than a mere possibility), schism and fragmentation follow.
It’s IMHO worth your meditation that the Spirit is not the author of division.

God Bless you.

P7

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

then we should read that as meaning *“let both grow together… except in some parts of the fields”. *I can see nothing in the parable of the tares as supporting the idea that we are both entitled and able to separate weeds form wheat, in any area of the field.

depends on what one understands to be the subject of the parable. Where do we get the idea that Christ, the apostles or the earliest church fathers even contemplated the possibility of corrupt leadership existing within the church?

David teaches us ( instrumentally you could observe, yet that does appear the inspired author’s teaching too) that you have to respect the legitimate anointed as such, independently from his behavior or even his being an enemy of yours, and even if you already know who is going to be the successor . This is my point, to which you replied with the list of “ifs”.

Yes, the Davidic kingship was passed along through blood…a bishop’s anointing is not and, as such, we have the “ifs”. Respect is also one thing and moral authority is another. I would suggest that even David lost his moral authority when he committed adultery.

IMHO Jesus did not declare the authorities of His time removed for reason of immorality…Really not a minor agreement, in the context of the present thread.

Lest you become too encouraged, I feel that I should point out that although they weren’t removed as authorities altogether (b/c of their immorality) I think Christ made it pretty clear that the Pharisees (for example) had lost their moral authority

I have tried to show that the qualifications written to Tim, and, respectively, those to Titus, simply cannot be mandatory. They are IMHO lists of recommendations to these two guys, having each the power and the duty to ordain, to be careful in exercising this exceptional task.

I see them as more than mere recommendations. Essentially the lists establish that someone in authority within the church must be impeccable (and not just recently so). There is no need for the lists to be exhaustive or exactly matching one another. IMHO the idea for the need (initially and continuing) of impeccability is communicated in both cases.

Nowhere IMHO in these, or other, scriptural pericopes is suggested that once ordained by Tim or Titus, or their peers, overseers could be ( or even should, under detailed circumstances ) “unordained” by their congregations.

I would suggest that you need this coupled with the contemplation that an overseer could be unqualified and corrupt. The congregation is to avoid association with unrepentant sinner. 1 Cor 5:11-13 reads, “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you." Where do you get the idea that there is an exception with respect to a corrupt overseer? He is still to be associated with?…he is not to be judged?

Granted this is your present position. As you see I focused on your point c) above. You assembled so many powerful “ifs”.
It would be interesting, following your lead, “if” in the future you wanted to introduce a thread on points a) and b).

as always, I would be interested in what you would have to offer

And I do share your perspective. I am quite persuaded ( rather terrified by ) that the Sistine Chapel will probably not see the XXII century ( for non Christian iconoclasts are going to destroy it ).

Should I get that you judge the validity of any pastor according to your moral criteria case by case ?

Not by me, but case by case by the congregation(s) subject to the leadership of the pastor in question…the judging within the church contemplated by 1 Cor 5 would have to be done by those positioned and sufficiently informed to judge.

Then we have to show whether, and under what conditions and what established rules, a supposed disqualification, on grounds of morality, of single bishops and popes, determines the hypotetical disqualification of the CC.…I do not see 1 Tim and Titus as providing us with anything like a technical tool to legitimately invalidate ( either in your own heart or in a board called to decide whether to fire and invalidate) pastors, or even to discern a supposed divine removal.

I do not see Titus or Tim giving us a precise list or an exhaustive list. I think that they compliment each other and communicate the requirement that the overseer must be impeccable. I note the two greatest commandments are imprecise, but they are the two greatest commandments nonetheless and are not to be treated as mere recommendations.

Consider moreover please that the introductory general terms used in them to mean a general fine level of morality are different, albeit similar. We have “anègkletos” in 1 Tim and “anepìleptos” in Titus.

I believe it is the other way around, but you are correct to point out that the lists do not match precisely

The use of two different words strongly supports IMHO the idea that we do not have here any technical “Handbook on Removing Pastors and on Discernment on supposed divine Removals”.

I agree that they do not constitute a technical manual

 

[Radical]

I am not sure to know to be honest what “Protestantism” is. I know, just a little, many Protestantisms, maybe some “post-Protestantisms”, and several forms of Christianity I am not always able to classify , such as some African Independent Churches. Is eg Oneness Pentecostalism a Protestantism ?

I don’t know either, I just know that “Protestant” is just so much easier to type than “non-Catholic, non- Orthodox Christian denominations” and I avoid the term of “non apostolic Christianity” b/c I am not prepared to imply that the Catholics or that the Orthodox somehow possess a greater claim to continuity with the apostles.

BTW, how old is the “entity Catholic Church” according to you ?

Don’t know…would be like asking a biologist, “How many hundreds of generations old is the horse species?” One would have to determine the proper criteria of identification first.

I’d say there was no particular compulsion, during the evangelization towards them, specifically aimed to prevent native American peoples from joining non catholic faith communities they knew just nothing about.
My point was just sharing with you my observation that during the most difficult upheaval since the arian crisis, the CC would enjoy the blessing of a brand new mass christianization.

and my point was that the phenomenon lent itself to a political explanation….during Europe’s imperialistic/colonization period the various European branches of Christianity enjoyed increases.

I was not going into the relation between local and universal Church.
I’d say the Head has to invalidate the pastors of His Church… not hands or legs.

I am not saying the “hands and legs”. I am saying that the whole body (including the head as per Paul’s figure) should act with reference to the requirements set out in scripture. It is that local body of Christ that is in position to know if the fellow meets those requirements….the fellow, of course, should have immediately removed himself.

Even in a general secular environment this bottom – up firing process would be a singular prescription for mess. Generally you’re fired by your boss, not your co-workers. You seem to say that a captain is valid just as long as he pleases the crew.

I would use a different analogy…one that compares the apostles instructions contained in scripture to a country’s constitution. The president’s appointment is valid only if done in accordance with the constitution and his office is valid only as long as it doesn’t try and establish its power beyond what is allowed by the constitution.

Regardless, the Church does have His Head and His Architect. We’re her living stones. He said “I will build my Church”. Shall we all be architects of His Church ?

I think we should both agree that it is men, guided by the Holy Spirit, that are the instruments of building the Church. Our disagreement is about which men.

Whenever, by a supposed empowerment, I happen to want to invalidate a pastor and you don’t ( since there is no obvious objective criterion on that, and disagreements are even more than a mere possibility), schism and fragmentation follow.
It’s IMHO worth your meditation that the Spirit is not the author of division.

It seems to me that most division is the result of disagreement on doctrine…and not concerning whether a leader is corrupt and should be removed. It is acknowledged that the HS is not the author of division…nor is the HS the author of doctrinal error or of corruption and all of these are realities within the Church….which goes to show that it is often men who aren’t guided by the HS who are running the Church. Such is why the moral authority of the Church is derived from the degree to which it serves as the voice of God. This brings us full circle. Is the voice of God tied to a particular office or is it more likely found in those who exhibit the fruits of the Spirit?

God Bless you.

 

[pneuma07]

depends on what one understands to be the subject of the parable. Where do we get the idea that Christ, the apostles or the earliest church fathers even contemplated the possibility of corrupt leadership existing within the church?

That depends whether we believe or not Christ and the apostles had foreknowledge. ……
Regardless, we are precisely analizing together the possibility according to Scriptures that Tim and Titus could make errors in ordinations, whereupon unsuitable leaders would follow.
I must confess that my principal reaction on the parable of the tares is not becoming frustrated as per : “*Must we then tolerate weeds ? *“, but “Am I and am I going to be wheat ?”

Yes, the Davidic kingship was passed along through blood…a bishop’s anointing is not and, as such, we have the “ifs”. Respect is also one thing and moral authority is another. I would suggest that even David lost his moral authority when he committed adultery.

Lest you become too encouraged, I feel that I should point out that although they weren’t removed as authorities altogether (b/c of their immorality) I think Christ made it pretty clear that the Pharisees (for example) had lost their moral authority

See how quickly human illusions fall.
I get a little confused if we introduce an indefinite category of “moral authority” as distinct from a ministry which is not “unordained”.

I see them as more than mere recommendations. Essentially the lists establish that someone in authority within the church must be impeccable (and not just recently so). There is no need for the lists to be exhaustive or exactly matching one another. IMHO the idea for the need (initially and continuing) of impeccability is communicated in both cases.

It seems to me we have to couple with this explicit recommendation to Tim 1:5 22

 New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

International Standard Version (©2008)

Do not ordain anyone hastily. Do not participate in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

I would suggest that you need this coupled with the contemplation that an overseer could be unqualified and corrupt. The congregation is to avoid association with unrepentant sinner. 1 Cor 5:11-13 reads, “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you." Where do you get the idea that there is an exception with respect to a corrupt overseer? He is still to be associated with?…he is not to be judged?

In the pastoral letters we are told IMHO that the responsibility for the choice of new pastors is up to Timothy or Titus, not the congregation as such, and that a corrupt overseer is a contemplated possibility.

The passage you quote is a good point to consider. We should comprehend what a general conciliation with the parable of the tares is.

For our own case, if we go just one little step further in reading 1 Cor, we find 1 Cor 12:28.
The prominent positions in the Church are from God. Overseers are certainly teachers, and we get they are from God, ( through the Apostle or those, like Tim and Titus, he made overseers, by way of the ancient semikà ) . Although the corrupt overseer IS contemplated, then we cannot “unordain” him.

How could we then comply with 1 Cor 5: 12-13 in case we had to consider our pastor wicked ?.
An answer I can give is: we can join another congregation. Aren’t we this way just putting away the wicked from among ourselves ?

And I do share your perspective. I am quite persuaded ( rather terrified by ) that the Sistine Chapel will probably not see the XXII century ( for non Christian iconoclasts are going to destroy it ).

P7

Dunno how to read this smily of yours……

Not by me, but case by case by the congregation(s) subject to the leadership of the pastor in question…the judging within the church contemplated by 1 Cor 5 would have to be done by those positioned and sufficiently informed to judge.

See responses above

I do not see Titus or Tim giving us a precise list or an exhaustive list. I think that they compliment each other and communicate the requirement that the overseer must be impeccable. I note the two greatest commandments are imprecise, but they are the two greatest commandments nonetheless and are not to be treated as mere recommendations.

I guess we agree on much here. Just probably you do not see there an exhortation to a careful well pondered ordination.

I believe it is the other way around, but you are correct to point out that the lists do not match precisely

Thanks for doublechecking for me

I agree that they do not constitute a technical manual

Fine

 

[pneuma07]

I

don’t know either, I just know that “Protestant” is just so much easier to type than “non-Catholic, non- Orthodox Christian denominations” and I avoid the term of “non apostolic Christianity” b/c I am not prepared to imply that the Catholics or that the Orthodox somehow possess a greater claim to continuity with the apostles.

 

[Radical]

Sorry to take so long…I should be caught up tomorrow, but here, at least is a start

That depends whether we believe or not Christ and the apostles had foreknowledge. ……

you are right. My wording was sloppy. My question really was, where do you get the idea that Jesus, the apostles or the ECFs ever considered tolerating the existence of a corrupt bishop?

In the pastoral letters we are told IMHO that the responsibility for the choice of new pastors is up to Timothy or Titus, not the congregation as such, and that a corrupt overseer is a contemplated possibility.

I see an involvement on behalf of the congregation. I don’t see that the instructions are only for Tim or Titus in this particular instance. Instead, I see these instructions as being requirements/principles (to follow) for anyone who appoints an overseer.

We should comprehend what a general conciliation with the parable of the tares is.

I have never seen a need to reconcile these two passages. I didn’t see the parable as speaking to the practice of the church. The field is the world and not the church (verse 37). In contrast to the story of Noah, this time God will allow the ungodly to continue in the world until the 2nd coming.

The prominent positions in the Church are from God. Overseers are certainly teachers, and we get they are from God, ( through the Apostle or those, like Tim and Titus, he made overseers, by way of the ancient semikà ) . Although the corrupt overseer IS contemplated, then we cannot “unordain” him.

where do you get that an overseer can not be “unordained”? I look at 1 Tim 5: 17- 19 where it reads:
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire. Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at [the mouth of] two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear.
From this, one can see that Paul contemplated that elders would sin, that they should be accused (by 2 or 3 witnesses) and that the sinful elder would be subject to a rebuking in front of the congregation. I just don’t see where you get the idea that if the elder does not correct his behavior upon being rebuked, then the congregation has no recourse but to tolerate the continued occupation of the office by that elder (and carry out meaningless public rebukes every now and then). IMHO that approach would make no sense.

How could we then comply with 1 Cor 5: 12-13 in case we had to consider our pastor wicked ?.

I think 1 Tim 5: 18-19 describes the approach…and I have to think that, in the case of a pastor who does not turn from his wicked ways, the ineffective public rebuking is followed by a dismissal and maybe even an expulsion from the congregation.

An answer I can give is: we can join another congregation. Aren’t we this way just putting away the wicked from among ourselves ?

that sounds too much like simply running from the problem…but even still, if everyone left, isn’t that in essence a dismissal?

Dunno how to read this smily of yours……

I didn’t think you were serious…it seems that we north americans can be a little more optimistic given our distance from the non-Christian iconoclasts.

I guess we agree on much here. Just probably you do not see there an exhortation to a careful well pondered ordination.

no, I see an exhortation to a careful well pondered selection as a proactive measure, however, I don’t think it stops there. If the proactive measure is not successful, then a reactive measure follows. The sound moral character is not just important for the selection of an overseer, it is even more important for the effectual ministry of an overseer.

 

[Radical]

That’s fine. I guess you do have anyway at least implicitly criteria, which make you state that the Church guided by B16 is another entity than the one guided by Peter and the apostles.
Since legitimacy is there or not, rather than having a distribution on a continuum, there has to be something like an ontological leap into illegitimacy by His Church in a given time. We might consider that as a “when” which non catholic brothers could define.

An example from the OT that I would think is relevant is the Israelites demand for a king. It was God’s plan that he would be their king, but the Israelites rejected God as their king (! Sam 8:7) in favor of a human king. It seems to me that the early church fell into exactly the same error…and appointed for itself (in the West) an earthly king to rule over it. When did the bishop of Rome amass sufficient power to be fairly labeled an earthly king? That question is open to debate, but historians could likely agree on a time range. That would be one criterion that would make me “state that the Church guided by B16 is another entity than the one guided by Peter and the apostles.”

It is out of question for me the right of the people to legally remove those they elected ( a procedure has to respected, if we just don’t want anarchy ). The president’s legitimacy stems from the people….Christian legitimate authority IMHO stems from Christ.

I agree that the legitimate Christian authority stems from Christ. That said, I note that the Spirit of Christ dwells in all Christians and not just in the members of a certain hierarchy. I further note that it is all those who possess Christ’s Spirit that constitute the body of Christ and not just the members of a certain hierarchy. As such, IMHO Christ’s representative on earth (from which his authority would flow) is the entire Church (his entire body) and not a certain hierarchy. Christ’s representative amid a particular congregation, is the entire congregation.

Whether doctrinally or morally the self seeing itself as supreme judge is the father of division. I’d wish we could see this together, but I am afraid we are …divided on that.

I wouldn’t classify any protestant view as holding that “self is the supreme judge” unless one is merely saying that for oneself, one must decide what is the truth….in which case both the protestant and the catholic would be seeing oneself as the supreme judge. I judge/evaluate which doctrines I will accept, but I do not think that I possess any infallibility in that regard. By deciding that you will accept whatever the CC puts forward, you also have determined what doctrines you will accept. The CC’s claim to infallibility is a chief source of division today. Among Protestants today there is a lot of “I think that my denomination has got it right (or has got it closest to right) and your denomination hasn’t quite got it right, but your denomination is close enough to allow total fellowship….and after all, I am not in a position to infallibly declare what is right.” That approach allows for considerable unity that cannot be achieved with the CC b/c of its claim to infallibility. As such, b/c the CC claim to infallibility stands in the way of greater unity, do you think it should be abandoned…or should it be preserved b/c you believe it to be true?

But on this I do hope we can concur: the first fruit exhibited by those you would invite me to follow is precisely division.

Therefore their own criterion is dramatically self-defeating for them IMHO.

The unity that you speak of is viewed from this side of the fence as being unity around error. Such a unity is of little or no value. Just as you would not abandon the CC’s claim to infallibility for the sake of a certain form of unity, I wouldn’t abandon what I perceive to be the truth for the sake of unity under the bishop of Rome. Unity in Christ is what we seek and Vatican II seemed to be a good step in that direction….In the protestant world, a great deal of unity has been achieved around the “I think that my denomination has got it closest to right, but yours is close enough” view that I described above. With Vatican II, the CC seemed to get to: “We think that the CC has got it absolutely right, but your protestant view isn’t all that bad.” Maybe Vatican III will see the CC take that extra necessary step and declare: “We think that the CC has got it closest to right, but your protestant view is close enough”. Such would be my hope.

God bless you